It’s only April 2014, but a minor boom for a Rick Perry presidential candidacy seems to be cropping up online, first in the Fiscal Timesand then on Jennifer Rubin’s WaPo blog, despite the Texas governor’s misfire the first time around.

He was the frontrunner in the 2012 campaign before that debate when he could not recall the names of all the federal agencies he wanted to eliminate completely (three at the time, but maybe he should consider doubling or tripling it this go round). A good deal of his forgetfulness, I am certain, was attributable to Perry’s then recent back surgery and the consequent medications. (I’m the author of eleven books but can barely remember my name after 5mg of Ambien.) But he will have to demonstrate that.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of reasons for this Perry boomlet — Jen Rubin gives ten — and I have some of my own. But first, the man needs a campaign song. It’s hard to believe he’s been barnstorming through blue states the likes of New York, Illinois and California, drumming up business for Texas, without one. So here’s my proposal — this oldie by The Silhouettes (1957) that seems to more than fill the bill…

Okay, now that that bit of nostalgia is out of the way, what are the reasons for giving Perry a second look , which I think it should be a long and careful one? Most importantly, as Rubin points out, pace The Silhouettes, Perry’s number one accomplishment is job creation, something he has achieved through what would seem to be the most obvious of means — lower taxes and fewer regulations — not that that seems to get through a single “liberal” brain in America, including the President’s. Nevertheless, most Republican candidates are sure to mouth that twin mantra in the coming election. What makes Perry different is that he has walked the walked successfully on this for a long time. He’s tested.

He’s also quite an appealing person. I know, having met him rather extensively on two occasions (more of that in a moment). But my principle reason for giving him that long second look is that he seems, at this juncture, the most viable of the possibilities in the room. But before I explain why, I want to make clear that in 2016 I will vote for virtually anyone with an R in front or after his or her name before I would vote for any candidate the Democrats could possibly propose other than a resurrected Harry Truman or JFK – and even then I’m not sure.

Are Republicans ignoring the evidence before their eyes that freshman senators, even nice looking ones who make good speeches, don't measure up to the executive experience of governors? Experience and qualifications matter a lot more than a rousing speech. Been there, done that.

We need someone who knows how jobs are created, how to help an economy recover, and how to take on tough problems. Right now, everybody's falling for great speeches. This is going to be a difficult primary because the Republicans have a deep bench with a lot of accomplished governors —and accomplishment in this economy and under this administration is a big deal.

" ... I want to make clear that in 2016 I will vote for virtually anyone with an R in front or after his or her name before I would vote for any candidate the Democrats could possibly propose..."--------------------------------------------

I won't.

If the Republicans decide to put up a Christie or a Jeb Bush or any other 'electable' RINO I won't vote.

Rick Perry has strong suits. His track record as governor is a big one. Public speaking and debating are not two of them. He's "ok" at his best and cringeworthy at times. I'm not buying the back pain/medication alibi...for him. It's not that the excuse is invalid for someone, it simply doesn't cover up a lack of skill in theBig Stage Oration arena. Perry is fine in friendly and forgiving confines. In other words, he hits for a nice average at the home park. "Away games" in hostile territory...different story.

A Tongue Tied Texas Governor is going to give people flashbacks.

Watching him stutter away debates to Hillary would be a painful exercise.

As for Rand Paul, Allahpundit pulled up some scary stuff (and he also "kinda likes" Paul the Son)

Apparently, there is film of Rand hammering Cheney with a cheap shot Haliburton reference that is Ayers/Soros fodder and also footage of Rand playing nice nice with Alex Jones, telling Jones that Rand's politics "are very, very, very similar" to his father's politics and viewpoints. (Shudder)

Sorry. And Scott Walker's lack of a degree shouldn't matter ...but it does.

Cruz has the debating skills that Perry does not...in fact, arguably the best skills in the field. He has the educational pedigree that Walker does not. In fact, arguably the best in the business. And he has the patriot's positions down pat, that Paul and his father do not. Perhaps the best in the business.

He simply may be too honest and willing to go belly to belly with the internal enemy to make it past the Alinsky tactics of slandering him and making him a caricature...as is done to EVERY threat to radical leftists and their propaganda machine.

Ben Carson has some of the same attributes, no political experience...but a gentler bedside manner.

Rubio has some of the same attributes and a gentler bedside manner...but has to win back confidence on the right.

Ryan has some of the same attributes, but probably cannot win back confidence...sadly.

The "surprise" candidate who may fill all the right boxes...is Jeff Sessions.

A primary that consisted of Cruz, Perry, Walker, Rubio, Ryan, Paul, Carson and Sessions would be thrilling to witness.

However, I would like to see a woman on the stage. Condi Rice or Nikki Haley or Martinez.

Because Republican women dust the floor with the other side's entrants and it would crush their spirit.

A minority woman who is brilliant, strong and patriotic runs the table against the slander machine. She is not a "token" and can't be portrayed as such without strong backlash.

They can't Palin-ize these three. Not without looking horrible....and losing the middle.

No to Christie, no to Jeb, no to Romney. Give me my A Team slate above and let the chips fall where they may.

I say we repeat what we've done in the last two presidential elections. Lets not agree on any Republican candidate. We should just save ourselves all the heartache, and anger over 'our ' guy not getting selected. Why not just concede the election to Hillary and forego the infighting. We learned nothing from '08 or '12, when we decided to sit it out, because we didn't have the 'perfect' candidate. I hate to break it to you, but we don't have a 'perfect' candidate this time around either He or she doesn't exist.

BRING BACK THE SMOKE-FILLED ROOMPerry made a critical mistake -- which Christie did not -- of entering the race too soon. He wasn't ready. And I don't think he ever will be. As The Times reported before W's first run -- the governor of Texas is a weak position. It's not as powerful as the other governors of other states. A person who can't defend himself -- like Romney or Perry -- is not worth supporting. W was one Bush too many. Too bad for Jeb, but as far as I'm concerned, the name Bush is the kiss of death. What we can learn from the Liar-in-Chief is that you don't have to run on a record. In fact, it's better not to have one. I like any R who can win. And the winner will be someone who can think on his or her feet, who's able to take on the biased media in an affable manner while also able to deflect the slings and arrows of lying Dems.

"SO LONG, IT'S BEEN GOOD TO KNOW YOU"That's my song for Rick Perry. And here's a repeat of a previous post:HILLARY ISN'T THE ENEMY. NOT RECOGNIZING WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THE ENEMY:What's important is recognizing that Obamacare, taxes, big government. strong defense and the economy are the only issues. And, then, recognizing that with a strong economy all the other issues become less important. What's important is recognizing that social issues are losers. Enough already about abortion, gun control, gay marriage, women's rights and immigration.What's important is winning in '14. And the only way to do that is not to repeat the mistakes of '12.

Are Republicans ignoring the evidence before their eyes that freshman senators, even nice looking ones who make good speeches, don't measure up to the executive experience of governors? Experience and qualifications matter a lot more than a rousing speech. Been there, done that.

We need someone who knows how jobs are created, how to help an economy recover, and how to take on tough problems. Right now, everybody's falling for great speeches. This is going to be a difficult primary because the Republicans have a deep bench with a lot of accomplished governors —and accomplishment in this economy and under this administration is a big deal.

"Are Republicans ignoring the evidence before their eyes that freshman senators, even nice looking ones who make good speeches, don't measure up to the executive experience of governors?"

The sensible ones aren't paying much attention to the Senator/Governor issue. We know that principles and character are what matter the most, especially in these dangerous times.

We also know that to even hint that our current problems with our current President have anything to do with his lack of executive experience is breathtakingly stupid and ignorant.

We also know that "It's the economy, stupid!!" is a great slogan and an effective marketing ploy for a shallow and ignorant populace, but that people of understanding know that the economy follows the principles, every time, all the time, because, just as right principles made this country, right principles make a man, not his experience.

Therefore, we are looking for a man who holds the right principles, and will consider it a bonus if he also has experience.

Who's hinting? Our current problems with our current president has everything to do with his lack of executive experience. Why not defend him with facts instead of your feelings? What executive experience does he have?

Maybe add to that what his principles are since, based on your theory, he either needs principles or experience which he seems to have neither.

Truman, I wish he would have gone for victory instead of containment in Korea, Vietnam may not have happened and Kennedy? his foreign policy chops are muddled at best and Vietnam can be laid at his feet. Uncle Nicky mopped the floor with him, we would have been better off with Nixon in 60.That said Roger on this I do agree. Perry has shown much better than he did in the debates and has promise. Cruz and Paul are freshman Senators and both are young. I must agree with Victor Davis Hanson, PLEASE this time nobody with an Ivy League degree or under 60 years of age. We need a leader with experience and an eye for the world stage.

It was early 1951. MacArthur was gone and a new ground commander in Korea was in place. Truman found out that the Navy and Army had planned a series of 5 amphibious landings in North Korea to turn the Chinese Army into sushi.

President Truman ordered that henceforth there shall be no more amphibious landings in the Korean Peninsula.

Oh well, back to World War I. Actually, the Navy was so enraged that they did one amphibious landing in North Korea for a day, stampeding the Chinese so bad it took about a week to restore order.

I've voted for Perry for quite a while, not because I'm a "really like" Perry-bit, but because of what choice did I really have. He at least voiced the way I feel on most things, and carried them out. I didn't think he was the best candidate in '12, but he was certainly better than Romney. I had to pinch my nostrils closed in '12, and I don't want to have to do it again. I don't think Cruz can legally run, but what the heck, neither could Soetoro. Regardless of where he was born (Soetoro), he was an Indonesian on an Indonesian passport when he came back to the US with the LEGAL name of Soetoro. When did he legally change his name back to Obama, and where are the records?????

Ted's my man of the moment, I don't think Perry can survive a national campaign, Rubio and Rand have both let me down bigtime already. I understand the comment about whether he has "that common touch", but that's something consultants can construct for him, and is best done with surrogates anyway. Now let's see him make that happen.

One side comment: You (as many others) compare the potential of a Republican candidate against the benchmark of Reagan. I, too, think RR was a great President, but I have become more convinced of late that the state of America requires a President more in the same vein as another great: Washington.

Our first President was strong enough to lead and so strongly committed to his moral and ethical convictions that he willingly walked away from power that many other men would literally kill to have. We need a President that will sacrifice his own personal power for the chance to cripple the Leviathan that the U.S. government has become. That is the only type of President that will, in the long run, save our Republic. The problem is first finding such a candidate and then second getting him/her elected.